The “Evolution” of The NORSOK Standard

Although the NORSOK M-501 and the ISO 12944-9 standards have continued to change every few years since their inception, today’s coatings are still failing in the same ways that their predecessors from previous decades did. If the standards are changing with the goal of raising quality with each iteration, why has coating performance not improved drastically since the introduction of these standards? What are we as an industry not doing to improve the performance of our coating systems across the board?

From our perspective, we suspect that the issue lies beyond just the coatings themselves and extends to the standards by which they are measured. In today’s blog we’ll be exploring why coating performance seems to be frozen in time; identifying opportunities for improvement in coating performance; and evaluating whether or not the standards are truly evolving at all.

How NORSOK M-501 and ISO 12944-9 Came to Be

To understand how we got here, let’s go back to where it all started. In 1994, the NORSOK standard was developed by Standards Norway through a collaborative effort with the Norwegian oil and gas industry as a whole. Originally dubbed “Norsk Sokkels Konkurranseposisjon”, which translates to “the Norwegian shelf’s competitive position,” this standard was intended to serve as a key differentiator of the Norwegian market. However, it quickly gained international traction as a leading guideline for oil and gas professionals overseas.

NORSOK M-501 was the first set of standard guidelines for paint style coatings to be introduced in the offshore industry. Being the first of its kind, it served as a tool to indicate the quality of a coating based on its performance after sustaining mechanical damage (more on that later). Shortly after its inception, ISO- who had set standards across hundreds of industries the world over- caught wind of NORSOK M-501 and essentially published their own version of the same guidelines as ISO 12944-9. Fundamentally, the two sets of standards are one and the same, with the accredited regulatory body being the main difference between them.

Being that ISO and Standards Norway are both seen as well-respected organizations worldwide, the general consensus by consumers seems to be that their standards are undoubtedly true marks of quality and performance. And one would hope this to be true- but the reality does not quite align with the public perception, at least in the case of offshore coatings for metallic structures.

The Problem with Coatings Evaluations

We mentioned earlier that both NORSOK M-501 and ISO 12944-9 assume mechanical damage of the protective coating in their respective testing methods. Maybe at first glance, assuming physical damage to the coating makes sense- the standard is assuming a worst case scenario and basing performance around that condition. However, what really ends up happening is that the results of these testing methods do not accurately reflect how a coating behaves in real world applications under the daily stresses of offshore impacts, humidity, UV exposure, and more.

What this means is that there are countless valuable pieces of data, like impact resistance, which could be excellent indicators of a coating’s performance and longevity… but because those metrics are not tested or measured as part of either standard’s set of guidelines, they go entirely unaccounted for.

Despite this, the ability to pass NORSOK M-501 and ISO 12944-9 testing standards is still perceived as a hallmark of quality to offshore asset owners. Coatings companies know this, too. This plays a huge part in how today’s coatings are formulated- and to put it lightly, the results are not positive.

Testing Performance, or Testing Patience?

As a result of a coating’s perceived quality being so heavily weighted by its ability to test well according to NORSOK or ISO standards, many coatings companies are now simply formulating their products to pass the test. In theory, doing so should produce remarkable results in coating performance- but as we’ve witnessed on countless offshore sites, most coatings are still failing the same way that they did back when the NORSOK standard was first introduced.

While the tests themselves do not accurately reflect the strength or longevity of a coating to begin with, that has not stopped other manufacturers from simply formulating their products to gain the standard seal of approval. So rather than developing their product with the end goal of real world performance, companies like our competitors instead develop with the end goal of achieving a certain metric in a controlled environment. The result is… well, not much of anything when you compare coating performance data over the years. What is supposed to be a prestigious accomplishment more often results in a dip in quality overall, which is a large part of why coatings continue to fail now the same way that they have been for years.

The Illusion of Evolution

So with all of this in mind, Standards Norway and ISO both have the power to make a major change in evaluating the quality of offshore coatings by doing so in a way that more accurately reflects their real world performance. The potential to really make a meaningful impact in the protection of offshore structures is massive. And yet, neither regulatory body is taking that opportunity to make a significant difference in the slightest.

Instead, NORSOK M-501 and ISO 12944-9 are changed just enough to be different from their previous iterations once every few years. By adjusting the standards in this way, manufacturers are forced to reformulate, re-evaluate, and repeat. These processes require an extremely high investment of both time and cash flow, and as a result many corners are cut elsewhere. This creates coatings that can pass the standards, but aren’t good for much else.

This approach from ISO and Standards Norway creates the illusion of progress, when in reality the changes between versions still have yet to get down to the heart of the issue- assessing coating performance in a way that matters. We have plenty more to say on that matter, but that is an issue to be explored at length in a future publication.